(26-10-2015 08:56 AM)Valaista Wrote: Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number”

No, I wouldn't say that.

(26-10-2015 08:56 AM)Valaista Wrote: “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” 1 John 1.5 (King James Bible)
The Number 137 is well-known throughout the physics community as the approximate inverse of the Fine Structure constant. It even has a name - alpha - which seems to be a supernatural coincidence given the context in which this number appears - John 1.1-5 - and the numerous highly significant identities associated with the Greek word Alpha.
The history and precise value of alpha can be found on the U.S. Government's National Institute of Standards and Technology site. The current value reported from NIST is:
alpha = 7.297352533 x 10-3
+/- 0.000000027 x 10-3 alpha-1 = 137.0359997
+/- 0.0000006
The value of alpha is extremely well established, with an uncertainty of about 2.7 x 10-11 - i.e. about three parts in 100 billion. It appears in Quantum Electrodynamics (aka QED) as the probability of interaction between Light and Matter. It has been the subject of intense study - many of the best physicists have felt that there must be some connection between alpha and the underlying structure of the Universe.

Are you trying to say that God set this all up because the Bible vaguely talked about the same topic? The same Bible that says pi = 3? It's probably best to chalk that up to a coincidence.

I note that your response in no way responded to what I said, despite you quoting me...

Sorry, getting used to this forum world. First time on here. Responding to multiple people.
Ok so, ill answer your by asking a couple questions.
QUESTION #1: Religion aside(and all the baggage that comes with it), what reason do atheists have to deny that a creator exists? Knowing that (1) We know that there is a fine structure constant, (2) we know that there are only 2 possible explanations (Multiverse or Design), (3) both cannot be observed or tested, however, there exists enormous amounts of logic to support design (godel ontological proof,The First Cause Argument, the Argument from Consciousness, etc), but no logic to support the multiverse, rather the math that a multiverse would require makes no sense at all. QUESTION #2: Have the laws of thermodynamics ever been proven wrong?

(26-10-2015 01:09 PM)julep Wrote: 2. (aren't numbered lists fun!) "Purpose" is a mental construct by human beings. I don't agree that anything has a purpose in the grand cosmic sense.

3. If scientists eventually prove there was a creator, I'll be fascinated to learn why so much of the universe seems to have been designed rather unintelligently… But again, this kind of god existing has no practical use or implications for me. I have no objection to scientists trying to figure out if there's a creator. Now if some great technology application comes out of that finding--like a Tabletop Universe set where You Get to Play God--I'd put that on my birthday present wish list. Not on my wish list: people telling me what I think instead of asking me what I think, as you seem to be doing.

4. Meh--I'm okay with the happiness I have, even though in theory there might be different or better kinds of happiness. I like knowledge and information, too. Big-T Truth, not so much, I'm okay with people who think they have that considering me ignorant of it.

1. People without a sense of humor can have a difficult time on this forum. I see you're already feeling the strain…you've just thrown a typical theist temper tantrum.

Good luck with your interactions here.

(1) I do have a sense of humor. Hence the numerous "lol's". Example: What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an atheist?
Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason!

(2)The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

If we trace this series of events back in time, then what do we find? There seem, at first glance, to be two possibilities: either we eventually reach the first event in the series, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going, or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity.the second of these is not possible, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God. Hence purpose is not just a human construct. QUESTION: If it is a human construct, how to you explain entropy? If you are using the term in another way, you should either define what you mean, or provide a reference to a different definition. Saying that you can avoid entropy is saying you avoid heat or temperature, which of course is non-sense.

(3) "fascinated to learn why so much of the universe seems to have been designed rather unintelligently"? What may seem unintelligent to a person may indeed be the epitome of human construct. Think about the Entropy again!! The increasing randomization of energy, entropy, is part of the design of the universe. The energy dilemma does not involve the amount of energy that is available; it involves the form in which the energy is available. The universe is involved in a constant process of converting one form of energy into another form and in doing so, it inevitably must convert part of the original energy into more randomized, less usable, heat energy. Potential energy is organized energy whereas heat represents randomized, DISORGANIZED energy. Heat energy is irretrievable energy. Although the energy contained in heat is not destroyed, it has become unavailable for producing work. All forms of energy are degraded incessantly and irreversibly to an inferior, lower-quality, more-randomized form of energy: Heat.

(4)A person may not care weather or not a creator exists. A person may not see any way that that would effect his or her life. We can debate axioms and philosophy all day but what this really boils down to is my last QUESTIONS: QUESTION #1: Religion aside(and all the baggage that comes with it), what reason do atheists have to deny that a creator exists? Knowing that (1) We know that there is a fine structure constant, (2) we know that there are only 2 possible explanations (Multiverse or Design), (3) both cannot be observed or tested, however, there exists enormous amounts of logic to support design (godel ontological proof,The First Cause Argument, the Argument from Consciousness, etc), but no logic to support the multiverse, rather the math that a multiverse would require makes no sense at all. QUESTION #2: Have the laws of thermodynamics ever been proven wrong?(Knowing that even with "Chaos theory" entropy keeps coming through. All the examples of chaos going to order, required energy to do so, and once the energy submitted to entropy then so would the temporary chaos to order. This temporary chaos to order is all part of the road to entropy in the end.) QUESTION #3: If question number 2 is no, then does the theory of "Macro-Evolution" contradicts itself?

(26-10-2015 02:19 PM)Valaista Wrote: (1) I do have a sense of humor. Hence the numerous "lol's". Example: What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an atheist?
Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason!

(2)The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

If we trace this series of events back in time, then what do we find? There seem, at first glance, to be two possibilities: either we eventually reach the first event in the series, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going, or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity.the second of these is not possible, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God. Hence purpose is not just a human construct. QUESTION: If it is a human construct, how to you explain entropy? If you are using the term in another way, you should either define what you mean, or provide a reference to a different definition. Saying that you can avoid entropy is saying you avoid heat or temperature, which of course is non-sense.

(3) "fascinated to learn why so much of the universe seems to have been designed rather unintelligently"? What may seem unintelligent to a person may indeed be the epitome of human construct. Think about the Entropy again!! The increasing randomization of energy, entropy, is part of the design of the universe. The energy dilemma does not involve the amount of energy that is available; it involves the form in which the energy is available. The universe is involved in a constant process of converting one form of energy into another form and in doing so, it inevitably must convert part of the original energy into more randomized, less usable, heat energy. Potential energy is organized energy whereas heat represents randomized, DISORGANIZED energy. Heat energy is irretrievable energy. Although the energy contained in heat is not destroyed, it has become unavailable for producing work. All forms of energy are degraded incessantly and irreversibly to an inferior, lower-quality, more-randomized form of energy: Heat.

(4)A person may not care weather or not a creator exists. A person may not see any way that that would effect his or her life. We can debate axioms and philosophy all day but what this really boils down to is my last QUESTIONS: QUESTION #1: Religion aside(and all the baggage that comes with it), what reason do atheists have to deny that a creator exists? Knowing that (1) We know that there is a fine structure constant, (2) we know that there are only 2 possible explanations (Multiverse or Design), (3) both cannot be observed or tested, however, there exists enormous amounts of logic to support design (godel ontological proof,The First Cause Argument, the Argument from Consciousness, etc), but no logic to support the multiverse, rather the math that a multiverse would require makes no sense at all. QUESTION #2: Have the laws of thermodynamics ever been proven wrong?(Knowing that even with "Chaos theory" entropy keeps coming through. All the examples of chaos going to order, required energy to do so, and once the energy submitted to entropy then so would the temporary chaos to order. This temporary chaos to order is all part of the road to entropy in the end.) QUESTION #3: If question number 2 is no, then does the theory of "Macro-Evolution" contradicts itself?

You continue to argue against points I haven't made. Julep out.

Really lol? I'm precisely talking about your points in detail!! Its ok though. Some questions are not easy to answer, and some answers are not easy to accept. While it may seem, at the time, like avoiding the question is the best action, it is actually an abandonment of reason and honest inquiry; therefore, fallacious.

(26-10-2015 02:41 PM)Valaista Wrote: The only real examples of hostility are you comments. It is unfortunately common that many important questions and challenges go unanswered. There are surely many reasons, but a common one may be a desire to avoid admitting that they might be wrong. They might not have a good answer, and while “I don’t know” is certainly acceptable, it may represent an unacceptable admission of at least potential error. This may happen when the responder either doesn't know the answer and wants to avoid embarrassment, or when the responder is being interrogated or questioned in debate, and wants to avoid giving a direct response. In any case, swearing doesn’t make your argument valid; it just tells the other person you have lost your class and control.

Being (or pretending to be) blissfully unaware of the nature of your offense does not preclude the fact of such offense. Acting as though the host-culture is at fault when its members become offended by the brazen behavior of a foreign visitor does tell me that you're likely an American. We have a gift for that sort of thinking.

I don't know what you meant to imply by "an unaccetable admission of at least potential error", since A) "admission of at least potential error" is pretty much the entire basis of the practice of the Scientific Method, and B) you were just a moment before castigating us for not admitting we might be wrong.

I can only mean that you assume, somehow simultaneously, that we are so afraid of admitting we are wrong that we... adopt a philosophical posture that fully admits to the probability of human error and bias. I mean, is that what you really want to go with, on this one?

We are firm in our commitment to standing by facts that we do know, and admitting to those we do not know. Yet people like you come here and question our decency, our knowledge, and even our integrity for holding such a position. Because we will not accept "woo-woo" (magical/metaphysical) explanations for things when a natural explanation will do, having no awareness of magic's existence outside of our (quite powerful) human imaginations, we are labeled almost every insult that can be managed, and almost daily this occurs here.

I see that you used "macro-evolution" in irony-indicating quotation marks. I'm an expert on evolutionary biology and biochemistry, and you seem fairly intelligent (at least, well-spoken), so perhaps you'd like to try a version of me that isn't recently-pissed-off-by-rudeness and have a discussion about how we know evolution and descent from common ancestry are real things?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson

(26-10-2015 02:41 PM)Valaista Wrote: The only real examples of hostility are you comments. It is unfortunately common that many important questions and challenges go unanswered. There are surely many reasons, but a common one may be a desire to avoid admitting that they might be wrong. They might not have a good answer, and while “I don’t know” is certainly acceptable, it may represent an unacceptable admission of at least potential error. This may happen when the responder either doesn't know the answer and wants to avoid embarrassment, or when the responder is being interrogated or questioned in debate, and wants to avoid giving a direct response. In any case, swearing doesn’t make your argument valid; it just tells the other person you have lost your class and control.

Being (or pretending to be) blissfully unaware of the nature of your offense does not preclude the fact of such offense. Acting as though the host-culture is at fault when its members become offended by the brazen behavior of a foreign visitor does tell me that you're likely an American. We have a gift for that sort of thinking.

I don't know what you meant to imply by "an unaccetable admission of at least potential error", since A) "admission of at least potential error" is pretty much the entire basis of the practice of the Scientific Method, and B) you were just a moment before castigating us for not admitting we might be wrong.

I can only mean that you assume, somehow simultaneously, that we are so afraid of admitting we are wrong that we... adopt a philosophical posture that fully admits to the probability of human error and bias. I mean, is that what you really want to go with, on this one?

We are firm in our commitment to standing by facts that we do know, and admitting to those we do not know. Yet people like you come here and question our decency, our knowledge, and even our integrity for holding such a position. Because we will not accept "woo-woo" (magical/metaphysical) explanations for things when a natural explanation will do, having no awareness of magic's existence outside of our (quite powerful) human imaginations, we are labeled almost every insult that can be managed, and almost daily this occurs here.

I see that you used "macro-evolution" in irony-indicating quotation marks. I'm an expert on evolutionary biology and biochemistry, and you seem fairly intelligent (at least, well-spoken), so perhaps you'd like to try a version of me that isn't recently-pissed-off-by-rudeness and have a discussion about how we know evolution and descent from common ancestry are real things?

Absolutly, lets talk about "macro-evolution".

If Macro-Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful, ultimate tendency toward “disarrangedness” brought by the 2nd Law. If such an important force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite obvious to all scientists. Yet, the fact is, no such force of nature has been found.

So, to create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Atheists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers, all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

Hold on guys, no time to post... I have to make a lot of phone calls to the Global Scientific Conspiracy Overlords and tell them the awful news! How could we never have thought of thermodynamics before!?!?!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson

Thinks he understands thermodynamics better than professional scientists.

Ok, do you understand what the Fallacy of Ad Hominem is? This involves the criticism of some person's position or belief by criticizing the person rather than the position itself. For instance, Einstein couldn't have been right about Relativity, for just look at the way he combs his hair. Or, look at the way he stutters when he talks. He must not know what he's talking about, so I'm not going to vote for him.

(26-10-2015 04:18 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote: I was so ready for a real discussion on a valid argument, too.

Merde.

What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow increasing its order?
Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules. Wouldn’t it be more plausible to believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception?

In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system.

If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that ‘open’ system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The system will decay in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.